Two-year Master's Degree to Replace A1 and A2 Civil Service Exams

The Two-Year Master's Degree Intended to Replace A1 and A2 Civil Service Exams

The Ministry for Digital Transformation, led by Óscar López, is proposing a free two-year Master's degree as a pathway to A1 and A2 positions within the Administration. The highest academic records would grant direct entry, while others would receive a postgraduate degree. The paradox is uncomfortable: the very system it aims to replace is criticized for demanding years of rote memorization, and the proposed substitute is questioned precisely for relying on grades that someone must assign. Therein lies the crux.

What the Government Proposes for Public Service Entry

The approach is justified by cost and time. In contrast to the years of unpaid study currently required to prepare for civil service exams, the ministry seeks an alternative route: a free two-year Master's program that offers direct entry into the Administration for top-scoring students and a postgraduate degree for the rest. This is not yet a law, nor even a finalized draft. Questions about who selects, based on what criteria, and how many positions will be filled remain publicly unanswered.

The details matter because the devil is in the details. A Master's program is approved by specific faculty, not an anonymous board, and this completely reorders the incentives for those aspiring to a permanent position.

Merit or Loophole: The Suspicion Surrounding the Change

The most common criticism is not against the Master's degree itself, but against who will manage it. The argument is that any reform to public service access driven by the Government will undermine merit and ability and serve to place allies in key positions. Precedents cited include the judiciary, the public prosecutor's office, state-owned companies, and oversight bodies. The suspicion crystallizes in a simple question: “And who oversees the Master's program?”

Conversely, some argue that the Master's is the most subjective thing there is, comparable to inflated high school grades, and that a pure exam standardizes knowledge even if the grading board errs. In response to this objection, it's argued that the exam process is not clean either: connections and family relationships also count.

The True Cost of Preparing for an A1 Civil Service Exam

Here lies the economic argument supporting the reform. A candidate needs years of study, a tutor, an academy, and, above all, someone to support them financially. This is why it's noted that individuals aged 30 to 50 are taking exams for lower-tier C1 positions just to get a foot in the door and later advance through internal promotion to A2. The current system, it's said, tends to favor those who can afford such a career pause.

The counterargument is that the cost, whether high or not, is still less than buying a Master's degree, and that shifting selection to academic grades places it in the hands of public universities with their own biases. The discussion, ultimately, is not about memory versus talent, but about who holds the key.

The French Example and the MIR-Style Test Proposal

France is cited as a model, though not always favorably. There, the now-defunct ENA—today INSP—and the grandes écoles are accessed through competitive exams, there are tests for almost everything, and in professions like notaries, judges, or registrars, work experience and case resolution weigh more than recitation. The comparison serves both to defend the Master's and to dismiss it: in France, positions are limited, and access is strictly based on qualifications.

Another alternative gaining traction is MIR-style tests: a long exam, the same for everyone, with position selection based on rank number. Those defending the Master's respond that Anglo-Saxon countries widely use psychometric tests and selection based on learning capacity.

Unions, Senior Civil Service Ranks, and a Law That Doesn't Yet Exist

Senior civil service ranks have expressed their rejection, and unions—with nuances—have also protested, although it's suggested that training eventually brings financial benefits. None of this is definitive: the proposal is seen as a trial balloon, and some are calling for it not to become law and for elections to be held first. The antiestéticar that the Master's content might include ideological material looms over many reservations.

With or without reform, the uncomfortable question this issue leaves open is: if the civil service exam system was already considered improvable, why would a new one, with fewer safeguards, turn out better?